coke wrote:

the review:this movie is total crap. it's, basically, a very long description of one miserable episode in one miserable guy's life, in which all he does is... well... he doesn't really do anything, apart from consuming a lot of alcohol. regardless of what it presents russia like, it has no plot (much less any twist in one), no direction, no character arc and no actor play. great cinematographer's work, but that doesn't make the whole shebang any less horrible.this movie is literally worthless. fake tits on a rotting corpse worthless.

or, if you want to ignore mass opinion and newspaper hacks, a professional critic gave it 3.5/4:https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/leviathan-2014"... the film’s ambitions are so grand and multi-dimensional, and mostly accomplished, that Zvyagintsev’s audacity can only be applauded. His is a career that now must be counted one of the most significant in contemporary cinema."

did you even see the same movie? 'it has no plot'? lmao it's literally a retelling of the story of job. it has such a well-established plot that EVERYONE recognises it as an allegory. an allegory is literally a plot that has become assimilated to the point of an archetype. it doesn't have a twist? what are you looking for, a Saw movie? se7en? no character arc? that's true: there is no 'arc', as such, like in traditional retellings of job: it's more like a decline. the movie certainly has a character decline.

can't help but feel your particularly virulent – and unusually hostile – response might have something to do with you being a butthurt ruski. coming from a country that even banned a comedy, 'the death of stalin', from cinemas, i'm not surprised.

yes, i've seen the movie. i also, unlike you, speak the language it's made in. i also, unlike you, live in the country the movie's story set up in, and am immersed in the culture this movie sets up as it's background. and, though i'm not a professional hipster critic, but an average joe, i do have an opinion which i'd think is at least as valid as yours or of any other far-away member of "EVERYONE" you mentioned, and give it when asked: this particular movie is worthless for the reasons i stated in my previous post.

it's also, unsurprisingly, a total failure commercially - because other average joe's, who didn't spend years studying specific crap to be able to decipher what the likes of yourself could encode in their so-called "works of art", didn't like it. go figure.

p.s. didn't we have this discussion already in the past? it was about tarkovsky i think, and you were equally furious at me for not appreciating that stuff, remember? same shit different day, only now you have another "argument" to throw at me - the "butthurt russki". come on, really?

it cost around $3 million to make and took $3 million in the box office. that's not even a flop – never mind the fact that many great films in film history have been box office flops and have become regarded as masterpieces in their rental/home after life; i mean, kubrick's 'barry lyndon' was a flop in its time and is now regarded as a high point in his career, for example – and it won awards at many of the world's most prestigious film festivals, including cannes. i fail to see how that makes the film a 'total failure commercially'.

you keep making out the film was a huge let down to its makers/producers but it was nominated for an oscar ffs. i'm not according film critics, festivals, or the goddamn oscars any sort of special importance to me personally, but i'm not sure how a film-maker can aim for any greater success in his/her career? let me know! so far you are combining your deeply personal hatred of it with some misconstrued idea of 'success'. most film directors don't aim to make michael bay money, or to 'crack china' with a $100 million dollar movie that can be spun into a 7-part franchise. not sure how this confuses you! a film like 'blade runner' was a 'terrible failure' by this same estimation.

also, yes, my controversial hot-take on tarkovsky being a major director. an opinion that pretty much anyone who cares for film will assent to, presuming they have two eyeballs, two ears and a little bit of white matter in between. what do these two film-makers, who draw your very idiosyncratic ire, have in common? could it be that they are *gasp* anti-soviet in outlook?! because i'm not making any controversial or tendentious claims for them, here. there is an almost universal consensus on tarkovsky.

uziq wrote:

it cost around $3 million to make and took $3 million in the box office. that's not even a flop – never mind the fact that many great films in film history have been box office flops and have become regarded as masterpieces in their rental/home after life; i mean, kubrick's 'barry lyndon' was a flop in its time and is now regarded as a high point in his career, for example – and it won awards at many of the world's most prestigious film festivals, including cannes. i fail to see how that makes the film a 'total failure commercially'.

i'd really like for us both to be alive and still in contact for five more years to show you this^ when everybody will have forgotten about zvyagintsev - and i have no doubt it will happen. can't promise anything with my current health though, but who knows.

you keep making out the film was a huge let down to its makers/producers but it was nominated for an oscar ffs.

i'm not according film critics, festivals, or the goddamn oscars any sort of special importance to me personally, but i'm not sure how a film-maker can aim for any greater success in his/her career? let me know! so far you are combining your deeply personal hatred of it with some misconstrued idea of 'success'. most film directors don't aim to make michael bay money, or to 'crack china' with a $100 million dollar movie that can be spun into a 7-part franchise. not sure how this confuses you! a film like 'blade runner' was a 'terrible failure' by this same estimation.

/facepalmcome on, dude. you can't be that naive. it's fucking pathetic. of course this movie is zvyagintsev sucking on western film-making community's collective dick, how can't you see that?

also, yes, my controversial hot-take on tarkovsky being a major director. an opinion that pretty much anyone who cares for film will assent to, presuming they have two eyeballs, two ears and a little bit of white matter in between. what do these two film-makers, who draw your very idiosyncratic ire, have in common? could it be that they are *gasp* anti-soviet in outlook?! because i'm not making any controversial or tendentious claims for them, here. there is an almost universal consensus on tarkovsky.

dostoyevsky did also paint russia in a horrible way - yet he's one of my absolute favorites. you know why? - because one doesn't have to go full hipster for several years to study shit to understand him. yes, i don't like people who are anti-soviet in outlook, especially when they don't know shit about soviet union, and simply tune in to anti-soviet propaganda prevalent in the west to score with them. maybe it even mars my views a little bit, i'd admit it. it still doesn't save the fucking leviathan from being one of the dumbest and pointless movies i've seen.

I've been getting serenaded by gaming acquaintances on how Battle Angel is a great movie either because it's "anti-liberal" (somehow) and liberal critics hate it, or because audiences love it and critics hate it ("audience score" being the innately superior metric just because).

Are these acquaintances weabs? Maybe it's because I'm able to take a step back now, but a sizeable portion of gamers seem to be weabs and edgelords. Though I suppose that is the equivalent of doing things for the lulz.

Some I know for sure. Others honestly wouldn't surprise me. At least a couple either embrace obnoxious MAGA identity unironically or are doing a good job of roleplaying it for shits and giggles. Holy hell the political teamspeak on some of the servers. Just trying to play the game, you know.

One of the reviews that caught my eye was that it was fragmented enough that you need background knowledge of the story. My reading backlog is long enough without adding a comic book.

Oscars so black this year. The Academy awards, like all other award shows, absolutely sucks. Bunch of isolated rich people congratulating themselves for creating obscure PC films. This year they made it even worse by giving away most of the awards to black people because they complained last year. It really is something magical how blacks complaining about not getting awards results in everyone bending over backwards to placate them. No other race does that. You will never see people giving away all the awards to Asians because they complained.

SuperJail Warden wrote:

How is it fair to any of the other superior nominees to see their work lose an award because the Academy wanted to right a historical injustice it had no part in?

I take it you've seen all the nominated films, in order to judge which of the other nominees was "superior".Also, didn't it win the BAFTA and a few other of the preceding awards which are usually pretty good indicators of which way the academy will go.

Also if your theory was correct surely either Black Klansman or Black Panther would have won...?

coke wrote:

SuperJail Warden wrote:

How is it fair to any of the other superior nominees to see their work lose an award because the Academy wanted to right a historical injustice it had no part in?

I take it you've seen all the nominated films, in order to judge which of the other nominees was "superior".Also, didn't it win the BAFTA and a few other of the preceding awards which are usually pretty good indicators of which way the academy will go.

Also if your theory was correct surely either Black Klansman or Black Panther would have won...?

My response was in reference to your "only black people complain" comment. It's a common refrain from racists and others who only look at the current situation (black people "complaining") without being able to wrap it in historical context. I expect that people like you (history teachers) would be able to understand the role of economic, social and political institutions actively excluding, disparaging and subjugating black people over the course of American History, but maybe I am a bit too optimistic and you are just an complete moran.

I thought Black Panther was one of the best movies of 2018. I don't follow Hollywood or the movie industry enough to have an opinion on any of the other nominees.

I agree with your sentiment regarding awards shows largely being industry folks patting themselves on the backs. That's why i don't care for them, don't watch them and couldn't possibly give less fucks about what they do. You seem to be very invested in it though.

I am not denying the existence of at least some institutional racism still existing in the U.S. I also understand how short the time frame from emancipation until now is historically speaking. I really don't want to be hit over the head with this stuff everyday though. Especially since I work in an overwhelmingly white organization. So turning the award show into another battlefield in the white vs black race war isn't an interest to me. That's what a lot of black people tried to turn this into and it showed when the nominees were announced and the winners picked.

You are a caricature of liberal California white people. Your corporate FedEx job puts you in contact with how many low income black people? They would steal and rob from your tiny white ass if you actually spent sometime in the ghetto. I have seen countless well meaning white teachers get chewed up and out by black students who appreciate literally zero about their kindness and culture.